source: Notes on the Circus

Notes on the Circus

After attending The Ringling Brothers Cicus in what looks like earthquake conditions, Jonas Mekas then edits the footage to some satirical music that manages to annoy the viewer while mocking the performers in sassy avant garde style. It serves little purpose other than the maker's bored condescendion for other artists having their performances mutilated as a lark that grates and says nothing. Probably unintentional but even without this take a shrill waste of time.

The ONLY think intersting is that you'll see Ringling's Circus circa 1966 and it no longer exists Nothing else is interesting about this abominaltion.

I cannot blame the filmmaker, Jonas Mekas, too much for this one. After all, I DID rent the DVD "American Avant Garde Film: Disc 1" from Netflix...so I did have an idea that the film might be on the weird side! However, I can tolerate and enjoy some avant garde films--just not this one. That's because it's downright painful to watch and I detect no hint of artistry or greatness about it. Sure, it could just be because I am an artless boob, but I can't see how any sane person could appreciate this one. It was filmed at three different performances of the circus in the 1960s. However, it does NOT look like a documentary or even a home movie. Mekas deliberately chose to move the camera about VERY rapidly and in a jerky manner--making the film hard to enjoy on any level. It was, to me, like torture--and very hard on the eyes. And, to make it worse, it was accompanied by VERY annoying banjo music!! A real chore to watch.

The earlier reviewer of this movie has hit the nail on the head in terms of what this looks like. I disagree, however, on what he perceives as its level of awfulness. This doesn't just look like it was shot by a kid, it is clearly intended to show its audience the sort of sensory overload a kid might undergo during a first trip to the circus: flashing images of performers, wild beasts in cage and lots of very strange music that sounds old-fashioned and a bit silly. It's a clear point-of-view short subject and needs to be appreciated and considered as such. I will agree that it is bad, but not for the technical reasons. It simply goes on far too long to be interesting. It's got a simple artistic thesis and to an adult audience -- for whom it is clearly intended -- doesn't vary enough to keep it worthwhile for its twelve-minute length. Four would probably have been more than enough.